Submitted:
05 January 2023
Posted:
09 January 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
2.2. Pathological Evaluation and Substage Attribution
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Malavaud B. T1G3 bladder tumours: The case for radical cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2004;45(4):406–10.
- Contieri R, Hurle R, Paciotti M, Casale P, Saita A, Porpiglia F, et al. Accuracy of the European Association of Urology (EAU) NMIBC 2021 scoring model in predicting progression in a large cohort of HG T1 NMIBC patients treated with BCG. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022 Oct.
- De Carlo C, Valeri M, Corbitt DN, Cieri M, Colombo P. Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer biomarkers beyond morphology. Vol. 12, Frontiers in Oncology. Frontiers Media S.A.; 2022.
- Kamat AM, Flaig TW, Grossman HB, Konety B, Lamm D, O’Donnell MA, et al. Expert consensus document: Consensus statement on best practice management regarding the use of intravesical immunotherapy with BCG for bladder cancer. Vol. 12, Nature Reviews Urology. Nature Publishing Group; 2015. p. 225–35.
- Pellucchi F, Freschi M, Moschini M, Rocchini L, Maccagnano C, Nazareno S, et al. Oncological predictive value of the 2004 World Health Organisation grading classification in primary T1 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. A step forward or back? BJU Int. 2015 Feb 1;115(2):267–73.
- Martin-Doyle W, Leow JJ, Orsola A, Chang SL, Bellmunt J. Improving selection criteria for early cystectomy in high-grade T1 bladder cancer: A meta-analysis of 15,215 patients. Vol. 33, Journal of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2015. p. 643–50.
- Soria F, Dutto D, Gontero P. Clinical and biological markers for risk-stratification of T1 high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Vol. 32, Current Opinion in Urology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2022. p. 517–22.
- Mariappan P, Fineron P, O’Donnell M, Gailer RM, Watson DJ, Smith G, et al. Combining two grading systems: the clinical validity and inter-observer variability of the 1973 and 2004 WHO bladder cancer classification systems assessed in a UK cohort with 15 years of prospective follow-up. World J Urol. 2021 Feb 1;39(2):425–31.
- Martini A, Afferi L, Zamboni S, Schultz JG, Lonati C, Mattei A, et al. Oncologic Surveillance for Variant Histology Bladder Cancer after Radical Cystectomy. J Urol. 2021 Oct 1;206(4):885–93.
- Lonati C, Baumeister P, Afferi L, Mari A, Minervini A, Krajewski W, et al. Survival Outcomes After Immediate Radical Cystectomy Versus Conservative Management with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Among T1 High-grade Micropapillary Bladder Cancer Patients: Results from a Multicentre Collaboration. Eur Urol Focus. 2022 Sep 1.
- Park J, Song C, Hong JH, Park BH, Cho YM, Kim CS, et al. Prognostic significance of non-papillary tumor morphology as a predictor of cancer progression and survival in patients with primary T1G3 bladder cancer. World J Urol. 2009;27(2):277–83.
- Tilki D, Shariat SF, Lotan Y, Rink M, Karakiewicz PI, Schoenberg MP, et al. Lymphovascular invasion is independently associated with bladder cancer recurrence and survival in patients with final stage T1 disease and negative lymph nodes after radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2013 Jun;111(8):1215–21.
- Yafi FA, Aprikian AG, Chin JL, Fradet Y, Izawa J, Estey E, et al. Impact of concomitant carcinoma in situ on upstaging and outcome following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. World J Urol. 2014 Oct 1;32(5):1295–301.
- Chade DC, Shariat SF, Adamy A, Bochner BH, Donat SMH, Herr HW, et al. Clinical outcome of primary versus secondary bladder carcinoma in situ. J Urol. 2010;184(2):464–9.
- Sylvester RJ, Rodríguez O, Hernández V, Turturica D, Bauerová L, Bruins HM, et al. European Association of Urology (EAU) Prognostic Factor Risk Groups for Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) Incorporating the WHO 2004/2016 and WHO 1973 Classification Systems for Grade: An Update from the EAU NMIBC Guidelines Panel[Formula present. Eur Urol. 2021;79(4):480–8.
- Babjuk M, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Compérat EM, Dominguez Escrig JL, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (Ta, T1, and Carcinoma in Situ). Eur Urol. 2022;81(1):75–94.
- WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Urinary and male genital tumours. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2022. (WHO classification of tumours series 5th ed.; vol. 8). https://publications.iarc.fr. No Title.
- Orsola A, Trias I, Raventós CX, Español I, Cecchini L, Búcar S, et al. Initial high-grade T1 urothelial cell carcinoma: Feasibility and prognostic significance of lamina propria invasion microstaging (T1a/b/c) in BCG-treated and BCG-non-treated patients. Eur Urol. 2005;48(2):231–8.
- Van Der Aa MNM, Van Leenders GJLH, Steyerberg EW, Van Rhijn BW, Jöbsis AC, Zwarthoff EC, et al. A new system for substaging pT1 papillary bladder cancer: A prognostic evaluation. Hum Pathol. 2005 Sep;36(9):981–6.
- Paner GP, Ro JY, Wojcik EM, Venkataraman G, Datta MW, Amin MB. Further Characterization of the Muscle Layers and Lamina Propria of the Urinary Bladder by Systematic Histologic Mapping Implications for Pathologic Staging of Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma. 2007.
- Van Rhijn BWG, Van Der Kwast TH, Alkhateeb SS, Fleshner NE, Van Leenders GJLH, Bostrom PJ, et al. A new and highly prognostic system to discern T1 bladder cancer substage. Eur Urol. 2012;61(2):378–84.
- Bertz S, Denzinger S, Otto W, Wieland WF, Stoehr R, Hofstaedter F, et al. Substaging by estimating the size of invasive tumour can improve risk stratification in pT1 urothelial bladder cancer-evaluation of a large hospital-based single-centre series. Histopathology. 2011;59(4):722–32.
- Cheng BL, Neumann RM, Weaver AL, Spotts BE, Bostwick DG. P r e di ctin g Ca n ce r P rog r e s s i o n i n Pa t i e n t s W i t h S t a g e T 1 Bla dde r C a r c ino m a. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(10):3182–7.
- Chang WC, Chang YH, Pan CC. Prognostic significance in substaging of T1 urinary bladder urothelial carcinoma on transurethral resection. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(3):454–61.
- Brimo F, Wu C, Zeizafoun N, Tanguay S, Aprikian A, Mansure JJ, et al. Prognostic factors in T1 bladder urothelial carcinoma: The value of recording millimetric depth of invasion, diameter of invasive carcinoma, and muscularis mucosa invasion. Hum Pathol [Internet]. 2013;44(1):95–102 . [CrossRef]
- Paner GP, Montironi R, Amin MB. Challenges in Pathologic Staging of Bladder Cancer: Proposals for Fresh Approaches of Assessing Pathologic Stage in Light of Recent Studies and Observations Pertaining to Bladder Histoanatomic Variances. Adv Anat Pathol. 2017;24(3):113–27.
- Compérat E, Amin MB, Berney DM, Cree I, Menon S, Moch H, et al. What’s new in WHO fifth edition – urinary tract. Histopathology. 2022;81(4):439–46.
- Patriarca C, Hurle R, Moschini M, Freschi M, Colombo P, Colecchia M, et al. Usefulness of pT1 substaging in papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma. Diagn Pathol [Internet]. 2016;11(1):1–9. [CrossRef]
- Colombo R, Hurle R, Moschini M, Freschi M, Colombo P, Colecchia M, et al. Feasibility and Clinical Roles of Different Substaging Systems at First and Second Transurethral Resection in Patients with T1 High-Grade Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(1):87–93.
- Van Der Meijden A, Sylvester R, Collette L, Bono A, Ten Kate F. The role and impact of pathology review on stage and grade assessment of stages Ta and T1 bladder tumors: A combined analysis of 5 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trials. J Urol. 2000;164(5):1533–7.
- Bol MGW, Baak JPA, Buhr-Wildhagen S, Kruse AJ, Kjellevold KH, Janssen EAM, et al. Reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1291–4.
- Compérat E, Egevad L, Lopez-Beltran A, Camparo P, Algaba F, Amin M, et al. An interobserver reproducibility study on invasiveness of bladder cancer using virtual microscopy and heatmaps. Histopathology. 2013;63(6):756–66.
- Raspollini MR, Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Cimadamore A, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A. pT1 high-grade bladder cancer: histologic criteria, pitfalls in the assessment of invasion, and substaging. Vol. 477, Virchows Archiv. Springer; 2020. p. 3–16.
- Budina A, Farahani SJ, Lal P, Nayak A. Subcategorization of T1 Bladder Cancer on Biopsy and Transurethral Resection Specimens for Predicting Progression. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2022;146(9):1131–9.
- de Jong FC, Hoedemaeker RF, Kvikstad V, Mensink JTM, de Jong JJ, Boevé ER, et al. T1 Substaging of Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer is Associated with bacillus Calmette-Guérin Failure and Improves Patient Stratification at Diagnosis. J Urol. 2021 Mar 1;205(3):701–8.
- Valeri M, Contieri R, Fasulo V, Cieri M, Elefante G, De Carlo C, et al. A novel pT1 substaging system for high-grade urothelial bladder carcinoma: a prospective mono-institutional confirmatory progression risk analysis. Virchows Archiv. 2022 Sep 1 (Vol. 481, No. SUPPL 1, pp. S20-S21).
- Hurle R, Casale P, Lazzeri M, Paciotti M, Saita A, Colombo P, et al. En bloc re-resection of high-risk NMIBC after en bloc resection: results of a multicenter observational study. World J Urol. 2020 Mar 1;38(3):703–8.
- De Carlo C, Valeri M, Rudini N, Zucali PA, Cieri M, Elefante GM, et al. Intratumoral Switch of Molecular Phenotype and Overall Survival in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(13).



| Variable | Patients(n =222) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, y | Median (IQR) | 74 (67-80) |
| Gender, n (%) | Male | 164 (73.8) |
| Female | 58 (26.2) | |
| Smoking status | Never/Former | 128 (57.6) |
| Active | 94 (42.4) | |
| BMI | Median (IQR) | 26.1 (23.4-28.7) |
| Multifocality, n (%) | No | 153 (68.3) |
| Yes | 69 (31.7) | |
| Tumor size, n (%) | <3 cm | 152 (68.3) |
| >3cm | 70 (31.7) | |
| Histology, n (%) | Pure transitional | 189 (85) |
| Divergent differentiation | 33 (15) | |
| Associated CIS, n (%) | No | 191 (86) |
| Yes | 31 (14) | |
| LVI, n (%) | No | 204 (91.9) |
| Yes | 18 (8.1) | |
| Necrosis, n (%) | No | 148 (66.7) |
| Yes | 74 (33.3) | |
| LP invasion, n (%) | Single focus | 77 (34.7) |
| Multiple foci | 145 (65.3) | |
| ROL1 (n = 91) | ROL2 (n = 131) | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (IQR) | 75 (71-82) | 73 (74.5-79) | 0.08 | |
| Gender, n (%) | Male | 66 (72.5) | 98 (74.8) | 0.70 |
| Female | 25 (27.5) | 33 (25.2) | ||
| Smoking status | Never/Former | 54 (59.3) | 74 (56.5) | 0.67 |
| Active | 37 (40.7) | 57 (43.5) | ||
| BMI, median (IQR) | 25.4 (22.6-28.7) | 26.2 (23.7-28.5) | 0.71 | |
| Recurrent tumor, n (%) | No | 66 (72.6) | 109 (83.2) | 0.06 |
| Yes | 25 (27.4) | 22 (16.8) | ||
| Multiple papillary tumors, n (%) | No | 63 (69.3) | 90 (68.7) | 0.98 |
| Yes | 28 (30.7) | 41 (31.3) | ||
| Tumor size, n (%) | <3 cm | 62 (68.1) | 90 (68.7) | 0.92 |
| >3 cm | 29 (31.9) | 41 (31.3) | ||
| Concomitant CIS, n (%) | No | 78 (85.7) | 113 (86.3) | 0.91 |
| Yes | 13 (14.3) | 18 (13.7) | ||
| LVI | No | 89 (97.8) | 115 (87.7) | <0.01 |
| Yes | 2 (2.2) | 16 (12.3) | ||
| Necrosis | No | 69 (75.8) | 79 (60.3) | 0.01 |
| Yes | 22 (24.2) | 52 (39.7) | ||
| Lamina Propria invasion | Single focus | 59 (64.8) | 18 (13.7) | <0.01 |
| Multiple foci | 32 (35.2) | 113 (86.3) | ||
| Second resection | No | 25 (27.5) | 53 (40.4) | 0.10 |
| Yes | 66 (72.5) | 78 (59.6) | ||
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR | CI 95% | p-value | HR | CI 95% | p-value |
| ROL (1,2) | 3.53 | 1.56 – 7.99 | <0.01 | 2.90 | 1.25 – 6.75 | 0.01 |
| Age | 1.01 | 0.98 - 1.04 | 0.33 | 1.02 | 0.98 – 1.05 | 0.21 |
| LVI (No, Yes) | 3.55 | 1.69 – 7.46 | <0.01 | 3.04 | 1.37 – 6.73 | <0.01 |
| Number of tumors (Single, multiple) | 1.53 | 0.80 – 2.92 | 0.19 | 1.62 | 0.83 – 3.18 | 0.15 |
| Tumor dimension (<3cm, >3cm) | 2.20 | 1.17 – 4.12 | 0.01 | 1.57 | 0.79 – 3.10 | 0.19 |
| Concomitant CIS (No, Yes) | 0.46 | 0.14 – 1.51 | 0.21 | 0.68 | 0.20 – 2.32 | 0.55 |
| Necrosis (No, Yes) | 1.93 | 1.04 – 3.60 | 0.04 | 1.27 | 0.64 – 2.50 | 0.48 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).